I do appreciate that this style of "history" is considered crankish. I do believe that much of the New Testament is just older myths, but are they combined with this Jesus of Gamala and events from the campaign of Titus Flavius to construct a figure who is then used by Josephus to predict the Roman destruction of Jerusalem?

I have actually been doing a lot of reading including mainstream history such as J M Roberts History of the World which is one of the most highly regarded histories ever written. What is interesting when one reads "proper" history is that these traditional, reputable historians who have chairs at Oxford and Coumbia/Harvard/Yale and the like, when they get to parts of history about Judea will often quote directly from the Old Testament as if it was factual. They can get away with that precisely because there is so much "peer reviewed" history written by historians in Christian countries where it would have been entirely appropriate until very recently to use the Old Testament as an historical source. That skews history and historical method. Carrier makes the point that there is virtually nothing written from a mythicist point of view which is peer reviewed.

Also, Roberts, as an example, when he gets to a point where he is discussing Egyptian religion makes an observation that the Pharoah merged two cults into one by merging the cult of Ra and the cult of Horus, obviously for reasons of political control. This would mean that there was a monotheism in Egypt in which the Father and Son were the same. That nicely explains the origins of the same idea in Christianity. J M Roberts doesn't make that jump though. Equally, when he refers to the cross being a symbol in Zoroastrianism, he says that this "speaks of other things". What this shows is not that "Christianity" does not pre-date Jesus Christ and does not stem from an older messianic religion because the leading historian says it does not. What it says is that in order for Professor Roberts to maintain his reputation he phrases things in a certain way and doesn't go the extra step of expressing any view where there is no evidence and to make a statement, which he is obviously alluding to, which would open him to attack.

That is not, to me honest history anymore than what Ellis or Murdoch are doing. Ellis sets out his views. The question is whether he says these anomalies are supported by other evidence which doesn't actually exist or elevates his view to one which people should accept because, for instance, he claims some authority which he doesn't have or asks you to believe it on faith. He doesn't.

In relation to the King Arthur story he doesn't say, for instance, that there was a King Arthur. He sets out the facts about a man being brought before Vespasian who is blind in one eye, has a dislocated shoulder and is in pretty bad shape. He points out that according to Josephus, Jesus of Gamala survived the crucifixion but then the historical record ends. He then discusses a very bizarre building at Dewa near Chester and he also sets out some of the Arthurian tales and makes some comparisons between names and events. That is about it. The rest is then an interpretation but as far as I can see he hasn't invented facts nor does he suggest we should believe Merlin had magical powers or that he is right because of his "faith" or that you will be rewarded in heaven if you believe him. Underneath everything he says is an atheistic mind which doesn't accept anything which is based on faith or religion, just facts and comparing these legends and stories to real life ordinary people who exist in the historical record.

Maybe he throws in a bit of showmanship to make it interesting. One of the videos explains how turning wine into water was a well known trick and he demonstrates it.

Personally, I think it would be a good thing if it became accepted that Jesus Christ was a confabulation of a real Jewish Priest and descendant of Julius Caesar who was crucified and taken down from the cross and was not resurrected but locked up until he died. If that were ever a position which became accepted then one could look at the teachings and philosophy of Christianity on its own merits, if that is even possible.

For some reason I am able to read conspiracy theories and revisionist history without taking them to the level of making them some sort of "truth" or religion in themselves which I have to live by or, conversely, thinking that they are the product of cranks, crackpots or the Devil.

As I am getting nowhere with my attempt to educate you lot, I googled Ralph Ellis King Jesus and came up with 500,000 entries and most of them, up to page 11 or so, were positive. If one plots the exponential growth of interest in this topic I expect that it will be hitting TV and regular news programs within the next two years or so and that it will then be topped off by an admission by the Pope that they knew about this all along. I put even money on the Vatican producing Excalibur before 2018.

(29-01-2014 02:35 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: As I am getting nowhere with my attempt to educate you lot, I googled Ralph Ellis King Jesus and came up with 500,000 entries and most of them, up to page 11 or so, were positive. If one plots the exponential growth of interest in this topic I expect that it will be hitting TV and regular news programs within the next two years or so and that it will then be topped off by an admission by the Pope that they knew about this all along. I put even money on the Vatican producing Excalibur before 2018.

Is there any point to this? Ultimately, if the King Arthur legend is based on Jesus of Gamalot, then maybe one could make a movie with di Caprio as J of Gamala. Or one could tell Christians that they were worshipping Jesus of Gamalot as an antidote to their proseletysing. My mother used to tell Jehovahs that she was a reincarnation of Mary Queen of Scots just so they would go away.

I prefer to read entertaining theories than to throw buckets of cold dirty water onto everything anyone says just because...

(29-01-2014 02:35 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: As I am getting nowhere with my attempt to educate you lot, I googled Ralph Ellis King Jesus and came up with 500,000 entries and most of them, up to page 11 or so, were positive. If one plots the exponential growth of interest in this topic I expect that it will be hitting TV and regular news programs within the next two years or so and that it will then be topped off by an admission by the Pope that they knew about this all along. I put even money on the Vatican producing Excalibur before 2018.

So there might be a hollow bit in the middle...and Newton was interested in the "cubit". Asking questions about why the UK train tracks were narrower than the rest of the world is not that bizarre. They also drive on the other side of the road, used Imperial measure, Pounds, Shillings, etc. Which, again, is of no interest to you because you weren't living in England when the economy was collapsing and British industry was making things in different sizes from their nearest neigbours who used a metric system.

You seem to have a long list of things which don't interest you. You should get out of Moose Jaw more often.

So there might be a hollow bit in the middle...and Newton was interested in the "cubit". Asking questions about why the UK train tracks were narrower than the rest of the world is not that bizarre. They also drive on the other side of the road, used Imperial measure, Pounds, Shillings, etc. Which, again, is of no interest to you because you weren't living in England when the economy was collapsing and British industry was making things in different sizes from their nearest neigbours who used a metric system.

You seem to have a long list of things which don't interest you. You should get out of Moose Jaw more often.

There might be a hollow bit in the middle???? Either your an idiot, scientifically ignorant or both. Which is it?

(29-01-2014 02:35 PM)Deltabravo Wrote: As I am getting nowhere with my attempt to educate you lot, I googled Ralph Ellis King Jesus and came up with 500,000 entries and most of them, up to page 11 or so, were positive. If one plots the exponential growth of interest in this topic I expect that it will be hitting TV and regular news programs within the next two years or so and that it will then be topped off by an admission by the Pope that they knew about this all along. I put even money on the Vatican producing Excalibur before 2018.

re "As I am getting nowhere with my attempt to educate you lot"

Friend, you need to dampen your enthusiasm for Ralph and keep reading around the topic. Try not to be patronising. People here, generally speaking , are well informed and open minded. They've given Ralph a go, but not been convinced

I've been studying the history for seven years, and I can't make head nor tail of Ralph's ideas. There may be bits of truth in his ideas, but to go there is a minefield.

If you think some point he's making makes sense, then present your reasons clearly and succinctly.

You've quoted Josephus (which most of us have read before,) yet I fail to see your point.